Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
at the post in washington and abroad. and she has covered pakistan and afghanistan extensively, so we are really lucky to have both of them tonight. after the ambassadors opening remarks, he and karen will have a conversation before opening it up to q&a with the audience. so please join me in welcoming ambassador haqqani and karen de young. [applause] >> thank you very much patricia for that kind introduction. of course when i was asked to come here i talked and nobody is paying any attention to pakistan these days. nothing gets said about pakistan in the media so why not use this forum to be able to communicate, and of course find an excuse to be on c-span. [laughter] and so therefore, here i am. it is a pleasure to see secretary mikhail in the audience, judith mchale and i have worked together in the last, since her appointment as undersecretary and public diplomacy of course is one of the many challenges we have dealt with on our and so it is a pleasure seeing you here in thank you for all the help and cooperation that you offer here. and to the distinguished audience many of whom
in afghanistan and next director of the c.i.a. certains -- earns a salary of approximately $180,000. the secretary of defense earns about $200,000. how then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense contractor executives? i understand there may be contractors who supply services to our nation that our government cannot perform on its own. however, i am also absolutely certain there is no one single private contractor whos value to our national security is twice that of the commander in chief of the united states military. at a time when the chairman of the joint chiefs is telling us that the nation's deaf is the number one threat facing america, we cannot continue -- debt is the number one threat facing america, we cannot keep paying private contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military leadership. my amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used to pay a federal government salary for any individual defense contractor that exceeds the valerie of the secretary of defense. that sal -- salary of the secretary of defense. that s
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
to continue going into another country's civil war when we have such commitments in afghanistan and iraq. when we are overdeploying our troops, when we are spending money that we are having to borrow, when we are taking the lion's share of this responsibility for our allies. many of us think that we shouldn't be adding another country where it's supposed to be a support function, but we all know that that is what leads to something more and then something more, and i thought senator lugar said it very well; then you have the aftermath of the end of a civil war and the responsibilities for that so this is not the time, in my opinion, to be giving that kind of authority to the president, but above that, above that, we are here because there is a crisis pop which i think -- upon which i think we have a united view of the goal, and that is to put our fiscal house in order so we're not united in the united states senate about how to do it so let's have that debate this week. let's have that debate that says we should be spending more or we should be spending less, that we should be taxing more or t
infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the $90 million more that we need for the cftc because of the deficit is nonsense. they want to turn the sec into a profit center. you have a catch-22. first denied the sec and the cftc adequate funding. they in turn will not be able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. because they have not been able to move as quickly on the rolls, the rules have to be abolished. that is something they have imposed. you want the sec and the cftc to have smart people and good information technology. this does not come from the financial institutions. if you've got the rules,, you want them will run.
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5